Author: stuart taylor
Date: 12:18:55 01/07/06
Go up one level in this thread
On January 03, 2006 at 13:21:46, Vincent Lejeune wrote: >On January 03, 2006 at 07:51:15, stuart taylor wrote: > >>On January 03, 2006 at 03:39:38, Vincent Lejeune wrote: >> >>>On January 02, 2006 at 20:01:17, stuart taylor wrote: >.. >>>>>>>>Questions are >>>>>>>>1)How long does it take for Rybka to find .....rh1? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>This post show that Rh1 is not the best move, Bxe3 is stronger >>>>>>>http://chessprogramming.org/cccsearch/ccc.php?art_id=346018 >>>>>> >>>>>>This is simply not the strongest move, but is also strong. >>>>>>But Rh1 takes mch longer for computers to find and to fully understand. >>>>>>S.Taylor >>>>> >>>>>I think you're wrong. But, please, post lines to be sure ... >>>> >>>>I would love to. I analyzed these things in great length several times (computer >>>>assisted). But I'm not set up for posting lines at the momment. >>>>But......for what it's worth, I'm confident that if you would do a thorough >>>>computer assisted analysis, you would see for yourself what I mean. (unless you >>>>think you went deeper than I did, but I don't see why you would have done so). >>>>S.T. >>> >>>The link I gave is an anlysis, 11h20 long, >> >>How long is that? Is that 11 hours 20 minutes? Or what? >>If nowhere near, then one needs to re-analyze from points further down, too. >>Computers see different things when they are closer up. > >Yes , it was 11 hours 20 minutes long. And when I see a score like -9.66, I >think the best way to prove wich line is the best it's to find the mate :-) I respect your results, then! But I'm not convinced anyway, because I think I remember coming to more than that with rh1. Anyhow, in either case, it is the best course, i.e. to have played h4. At that point, the computer should see a big plus, because it exists at that point. S.Taylor > > >> >>> with hiarcs 9, it's already a good >>>starting point. Could you improved the 2 best lines ? >> >>However, Rh1 is not necesary, in order to have played h4 (earlier), since Bxe3 >>(and maybe something else too) also justifies the earlier moves. >>And this was not the major major thing I wanted to know what Rybka says about, >>but in passing, also that. >>In any case, if you are still sure that Bxe3 is even better than Rhi, and have >>analyzed further than me, then congratulations. But I'm still very sorry, but I >>cannot do want I want to do at this time, and I hope in the near future I will >>have better computer access and program access, and knowledge how to utilize >>them properly etc. Then, for sure, this will probably be the first position I >>will be studying again in depth, with the latest Rybka or other best program >>which I'll have. >>regards >>S.Taylor >>> >>>Hiarcs 9 analyse , 3 best moves, 11h20m of thinking on an amd 2800+ >>> >>>Larssen - Spasski >>>2kr3r/ppp1qpp1/2p5/2b2b2/2P1pPP1/1P2P1p1/PBQPB3/RN2K1R1 b Q - 0 1 >>> >>>Analysis by Hiarcs 9: >>> >>>1. -+ (-9.66): 1...Fxe3 2.Cc3 Ff2+ 3.Rd1 Fxg1 4.Dc1 e3 5.gxf5 Txd2+ 6.Dxd2 exd2 >>>7.Rc2 Fd4 8.Fd3 De3 9.Td1 Th2 10.b4 Dxf4 >>>2. -+ (-5.78): 1...Th1 2.Txh1 g2 3.Tg1 Dh4+ 4.Rd1 Dh1 5.Dc1 Dxg1+ 6.Rc2 Dxc1+ >>>7.Fxc1 Fd7 8.Fa3 g1D 9.Fxc5 >>>
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.